Tom Barrack, US Ambassador and Special Envoy for Syria, outlined a transformative vision for regional diplomacy at the Antalya Diplomacy Forum, asserting that Israel’s most strategic path forward lies in a fundamental realignment with Türkiye.

Speaking during a panel at the forum, Barrack described a United States that has achieved energy independence and is now signaling a programmatic shift in its Middle East policy. He characterized the current American stance as telling the region, “We love you, we are with you, but we now have a new doctrine.”

Barrack identified this framework as the “Donroe Doctrine,” which he defined as an extension of “America First.” This doctrine, he explained, dictates that US concerns are primarily centered on the Western Hemisphere. Amid global “pain and restlessness,” Barrack noted that the current administration is skeptical of international frameworks. “Forget multilateral organizations,” Barrack said. “I have a boss who cannot spell the word ‘multilateral’.”

Detailing the presidential approach to diplomacy, Barrack said that if his superior faces an issue with a world leader, he simply calls them to strike a deal. Should negotiations fail, he applies tariffs. This shift indicates a move away from global multilateralism toward a landscape of bilateralism, sending a clear message to the world: “Every region must begin to fend for itself.” Barrack characterized this as a matter of parity, stating, “He who pays the piper calls the tune.”

Turning to Lebanon, Barrack noted the absence of a census since 1938 and offered an assessment of the Shiite population. He suggested that Lebanese Sunnis, who constitute the majority of the Lebanese armed forces, as well as Palestinian and Syrian refugees, would be unlikely to engage in fratricidal conflict, particularly while Israel is conducting strikes against them. This environment, he argued, only reinforces the rationale for Hezbollah’s existence as a defensive shield against Israel. He contended that the ultimate solution to such instability must be rooted in fundamental prosperity.

Barrack emphasized that when a sovereign nation like Iran supports a militia, that force cannot be eliminated through military attrition alone—a philosophy he applied globally. He argued that stability must begin with individual and familial prosperity, eventually scaling up to the tribe and the broader society. This focus on local economic well-being is the reason, Barrack claimed, that his “boss” believes certain responsibilities should be left to the region itself.

He cited the Abraham Accords as a primary answer to regional challenges and described the US involvement in Syria as an experiment alongside Türkiye, which he characterized as a vital partner. Barrack lauded Türkiye as the only “real economy” in the heart of a complex region, describing it as a true nation defined by its people, resources, and military might. While Türkiye is the second-largest supporter of NATO, Barrack noted it is also one of the alliance’s most relevant and critical engines.

Barrack addressed the shift in global logistics, noting that the “Portsmouth Strait” and the Çanakkale Strait (Dardanelles) demonstrate that traditional maritime laws face modern challenges. He argued that the alliance must find a way to merge converging perspectives through a “harmony of interests” where individuals benefit. On the subject of religion, he called for mutual respect and the freedom for all to practice their faith, observing that such a state of affairs does not currently exist. He lamented a similar division in the US between those who believe the country should have a Christian identity and other minority faiths.

During the panel, the moderator noted that diplomacy is the only viable alternative to a cycle of war and pointed out the significant decline in trade and diplomatic relations between Türkiye and Israel. When asked about Israel’s current military posturing and whether it signaled a new cycle of conflict or a failure of diplomacy, Barrack offered his personal analysis.

“This region respects only one thing: power,” Barrack said. He described President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan as an “incredible leader” and stated that Benjamin Netanyahu is doing what he believes is best for his country. Barrack warned that failing to project strength results in “living in a dream world,” citing Syria as a prime example. He argued that Syria’s internal logic persists because of a “strong, powerful, and courageous leader” who has directed the country’s course, even if observers disagree with his perspectives.

Barrack characterized the heightened rhetoric between Erdoğan and Netanyahu as “merely rhetoric.” He noted that newspapers in Tel Aviv might depict a “modern Ottoman Empire” stretching from Vienna to the Maldives, while papers in Istanbul might show a “Greater Israel” with similar reach. He dismissed these as competing narratives of conquest.

Addressing energy security, Barrack stated that the “energy world” no longer views ships as the cheapest or most flexible method for transport due to inherent vulnerabilities. While ships can be diverted from the Arabian Gulf to Indonesia in the event of a conflict, pipelines lack that flexibility. However, he noted that pipelines are currently operating at only 30% capacity because the global focus has shifted from production to security. This represents a transition from a “just-in-time” logistics model to a “just-in-case” philosophy.

Barrack highlighted that critical infrastructure, including fiber optic cables, data, and resources, now flows through Türkiye. He suggested that just as Israel has aligned with Abu Dhabi and potentially Saudi Arabia, its ultimate prosperity depends on aligning with Türkiye. “Türkiye is not a country to be trifled with,” he said, adding that he expects the current hostile rhetoric to eventually dissipate.

Barrack defended the effectiveness of “benevolent monarchies” and “monarchical republics” in the Gulf, arguing that these strong leadership regimes are what currently work in the region. He contended that democratic experiments like the Arab Spring had failed, and countries targeted for human rights or democratic reforms had largely struggled.

He emphasized that Israel must align its interests with these “strong civilizations” and the Gulf. Mentioning Syria, he noted it as one of the world’s oldest civilizations where Jews, Muslims, and Christians lived side-by-side for centuries without conflict.

Barrack stated that he had shared these views with Israeli officials. While acknowledging that their current tactical moves might be correct from their perspective, he questioned the long-term strategy. He criticized the nature of current ceasefire agreements, specifically a 2024 mechanism where Israel retains the right to strike if it unilaterally deems itself under threat. He also noted that UNIFIL has spent 40 years and $10 billion in Lebanon without stopping conflict, and that war resumed shortly after the latest agreement due to side arrangements made with the Biden administration.

When asked about President Erdoğan’s proposal for an international stability force in Gaza and Israel’s rejection of the idea, Barrack offered a personal recommendation. “The smartest thing Israel can do is to encourage and embrace Türkiye’s entry into that forum,” he said.

He argued that Türkiye’s refusal to designate Hamas as a “foreign terrorist organization” is precisely what makes them a necessary mediator. He asked, “Who are the intermediaries to talk to?” He noted that while the US possesses absolute air, sea, and land dominance in the region, it does not possess “the hearts and souls of the people.”

Barrack revealed that during President Trump’s first term, the US relied on Türkiye’s unique access. He cited an instance where Trump called Erdoğan to request intervention with Hamas leaders before a peace agreement could be finalized. He credited Erdoğan, Hakan Fidan, and İbrahim Kalın with successfully bringing those leaders to the table. Barrack argued that if Türkiye had followed the US in blacklisting Hamas, such mediation would have been impossible. He concluded that including Türkiye in the Gaza process could help prevent atrocities and violations, as Türkiye “speaks the language” of the region.

Addressing Syria’s lack of retaliation against Israeli strikes, Barrack argued that the Syrian government under the El-Sharra regime has shown remarkable restraint and an openness to non-aggression. He stated that the Syrian leadership has repeatedly expressed a desire to avoid war and work toward normalization.

Barrack noted that Netanyahu’s stance that “everything changed after October 7” has rendered previous border agreements—from 1967 and 1974—irrelevant to current Israeli policy. He described Syria’s decision to stay out of the current war as a “brilliant move,” despite constant Israeli incursions against convoys.

Barrack revealed he had personally managed five meetings between Syrian Foreign Minister Assad al-Shaibani and Ron Dermer, representing Netanyahu. He stated that while the process “evaporated” after coming very close to a breakthrough, a foundation for a “fusion” remains. “The Syrians have shown tremendous patience,” Barrack said, adding that he believes a stage of non-aggression and normalization will be reached “sooner than one might think.”